Re: HTML5 support

[David C. Mores via support-seamonkey]

Ken Rudolph wrote:
Running SeaMonkey 2.49.1 on updated Win10, with modified user agent: 
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/59.0.3


Netflix sent me a link in SeaMonkey e-mail to watch a short message from 
the Crown.  However when I click on the link [shown below] it doesn't 
play in the SeaMonkey browser, rather I get a message about Netflix 
system requirements for HTML5 Player and Silverlight.  No add-ons from 
Mozilla that I try seem to work to rectify this problem.


When I use Firefox, Chrome or Edge browsers, and use the same link it 
plays fine on all 3.  But the point of SeaMonkey is that a link in 
e-mail goes to the SM browser.  Maybe if there were an easy way to set 
links in SM e-mail to go to one of the other browsers that would be 
useful...but not optimal, of course.


Anyway, the e-mail link in question:

https://www.netflix.com/watch/80230267?trkid=13710079&MSG_TITLE=80230267&lnktrk=EMP&g=F78B0997B0E061CD360DCEAFCB6432116452765C&lkid=CROWN_S2_MESSAGE_WATCH 



How can I get SM to play this link?

--
Ken Rudolph



I'm a Netflix subscriber and I normally remain logged in on the Netflix 
site.  When I clicked on the link, I got a page for "The Crown" but no 
arrow to start the video.  However, at the top of the page there was a 
banner with "Netflix" on left and "Sign Out" on the right.  After 
signing out, I got a page with an arrow link to start the video which 
did in fact play it.


User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 
Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.1

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Diverge From T-bird

[David C. Mores via support-seamonkey]

Ed Mullen wrote:

On 6/10/17 at 8:39 PM, David C. Mores's prodigious digits fired off with
great aplomb:

EE wrote:

rickman wrote:

When using SeaMonkey for reading newsgroups, I see a number of
differences from T-bird.  One that is particularly annoying is when
reading a thread new posts often show up in the middle with other parts
of the thread outside of the thread pane.  An easy way to see if any
other posts remain unread in this thread is to use the \ key to close
the thread.  If an underline remains I could then press 'N' to take me
to the next unread post in that thread in T-bird.  In SeaMonkey it
takes
me to the first unread post in the GROUP!

Obviously this is a divergence from T-bird.  Was this something that
was
changed in SeaMonkey or in T-bird?

I find any number of differences in usability like this.  I think if I
could get T-bird to work on my machine I would switch back.  But it ran
even slower than SeaMonkey does, so SeaMonkey is a net improvement,
just
not a large one.

For that matter, why did SeaMonkey split off from T-bird?  What was the
fundamental issue that created a new tool so similar to the old?


What do you mean, "outside of the thread pane"? If a thread exists, it
has to be in the thread pane, unless you think that some part of it was
not sent.

SeaMonkey did not split from Thunderbird.  Thunderbird and Firefox split
off from the Mozilla suite, and SeaMonkey was a continuation of the
Mozilla suite, only kept more up to date by having the cores of
Thunderbird and Firefox.


As I recall it from the discussion at the time, Thunderbird and
Firefox were created as separate, single function applications to make
them faster and more responsive than the combined multi-function
application.


That was part of the rationale.



I never understood or appreciated this view because I always found the
Seamonkey multi-function application to be entirely responsive and
fast enough for me.  Like what are we talking about?  300ms verses
500ms or some such - not really perceptible for most of us in day to
day usage. Having the mail and browser app, etc. rolled into one
seemed to be - and continues to be - a supremely convenient and
efficient way to go, but your mileage and situation may vary.


A long time ago, because of the faster/lighter argument, I did a
comparison of SM vs separate apps.



The original was done, I think, in 2006. I re-ran them in 2013.



Thanks for adding your quantitative study information to this 
discussion.  It's interesting, and made me realize that my comments on 
fastness were about operational fastness and not about the app startup 
time fastness - which likely is what the original FF/TB/SM discussion 
was about.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Diverge From T-bird

[David C. Mores via support-seamonkey]

EE wrote:

rickman wrote:

When using SeaMonkey for reading newsgroups, I see a number of
differences from T-bird.  One that is particularly annoying is when
reading a thread new posts often show up in the middle with other parts
of the thread outside of the thread pane.  An easy way to see if any
other posts remain unread in this thread is to use the \ key to close
the thread.  If an underline remains I could then press 'N' to take me
to the next unread post in that thread in T-bird.  In SeaMonkey it takes
me to the first unread post in the GROUP!

Obviously this is a divergence from T-bird.  Was this something that was
changed in SeaMonkey or in T-bird?

I find any number of differences in usability like this.  I think if I
could get T-bird to work on my machine I would switch back.  But it ran
even slower than SeaMonkey does, so SeaMonkey is a net improvement, just
not a large one.

For that matter, why did SeaMonkey split off from T-bird?  What was the
fundamental issue that created a new tool so similar to the old?


What do you mean, "outside of the thread pane"? If a thread exists, it
has to be in the thread pane, unless you think that some part of it was
not sent.

SeaMonkey did not split from Thunderbird.  Thunderbird and Firefox split
off from the Mozilla suite, and SeaMonkey was a continuation of the
Mozilla suite, only kept more up to date by having the cores of
Thunderbird and Firefox.

As I recall it from the discussion at the time, Thunderbird and Firefox 
were created as separate, single function applications to make them 
faster and more responsive than the combined multi-function application.


I never understood or appreciated this view because I always found the 
Seamonkey multi-function application to be entirely responsive and fast 
enough for me.  Like what are we talking about?  300ms verses 500ms or 
some such - not really perceptible for most of us in day to day usage. 
Having the mail and browser app, etc. rolled into one seemed to be - and 
continues to be - a supremely convenient and efficient way to go, but 
your mileage and situation may vary.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Basic Authentication issue in 2.46

[David C. Mores via support-seamonkey]

Gerry Hickman wrote:

I have a SiteCom router with an embedded web server. For many years I
was able to log in from SeaMonkey by typing http://10.0.0.1/ and then
the user name and password. This still works in older versions of SM and
FF, but not in SM 2.46

I believe the issue is related to a new HTTP header being sent by SM 2.46

Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1

I set up a raw HTTP test on a linux VM (without using a browser) and
tested both with and without this header.

Request with header : Authentication FAILS
Request without header : Authentication WORKS

It's quite strange, as I don't see how the router can even know about
this header as it's too old. I also noticed something even more odd, if
I change the header to something like

BlahBlahBalh: 1

the authentication also fails, but if I use

BlahBlahBalh: one

everything starts working

Is it possible to disable the 'Upgrade-Insecure-Requests' header in
SeaMonkey?



I found this same behavior with my Linksys/Cisco WRT120N home router 
that I bought in 2010.  Since SeaMonkey is based pretty much on Firefox 
code, I checked it there with the same result.  So I decided to file a 
bug report on Firefox because any fix there would/should migrate to the 
SeaMonkey code.


See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1330795

The Comment story started 4 months ago and has recently concluded that 
my router is the bad boy.  It has been at end-of-life status according 
to Linksys/Cisco for about 6 years.  The only workaround I have is, as 
you have found, to use the older version of SM, or another browser such 
as Google Chrome, MS Edge or Pale Moon - that apparently do not (yet) 
send the Upgrade-Insecure-Header in the request.


This header mechanism is legitimate W3C:
https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-upgrade-insecure-requests/
I looks like we got to learn to live with it.

How old is your SiteCom router?  Have you looked into available firmware 
upgrades for it?

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey